Where the House stands on health-care

A lot of attention has been devoted to the Senate in recent months, but as we approach make-or-break time in the health-care debate it has become clear that the suspense lies in the House.

The approach Democrats are now openly pursuing (get the House to pass the Senate bill, get both chambers to pass legislation containing fixes using the reconciliation the process) does not require them to ever put together more than 50 Senate votes. While even that could grow complicated, it’s tough to see Harry Reid losing 10 of his senators given that even centrists like Mary Landrieu sound open to voting for reconciliation. Besides Landrieu, all eyes are on Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Jim Webb, Mark Pryor, Michael Begich, Kent Conrad, Russ Feingold - how likely is it all of these join the GOP in killing a small fix bill?

Meanwhile, the House has gotten far trickier. For one, many Democrats dislike the Senate bill and have insisted they would not vote for it without the upper-chamber passing the fix bill first. Second is the abortion issue: The Senate bill does not contain language as tough as the Stupak amendment and the sidecar is not expected to add it. This should not only lead Stupak to bolt but could also give conservatives Democrats who supported the original bill cover to change their vote. After all, the Senate bill is to the right of the House bill on most other issues, making abortion a rare issue centrists can point to in order to justify a switch.

Third, Democrats have gotten more scared about their electoral prospects than they were in the fall. Why this should push them to kill the bill is hard to discern. Adopting it would generate weeks of positive coverage about the party’s epic achievement, whereas letting it die would generate more stories about Democrats’ failure to govern. As importantly, anyone who voted for health-care reform in the fall will be attacked however they vote this second time. What will their response be: “I voted for it before I voted against it”? Yet, there’s no question that electoral terror has gripped Democrats.

Once you add up all of these factors, the math becomes tough. The House voted to pass the original health-care bill 220 to 215 this fall. Since then:

  • 4 representatives have left the House - 3 Democrats who had voted “yes” and 1 Republican who had voted “no”. (Jack Murtha passed away; Robert Wexler, Neil Abercrombie and Nathan Deal resigned.) This alone shrinks the margin to 217-214.
  • Rep. Anh Cao, the one Republican who voted for the original bill, has made it clear he will oppose any new legislation. That makes it 216-215.
  • Rep. Bart Stupak has left little doubt he’d vote against the bill if his anti-abortion language is not included. Given that the Senate bill already contains tough anti-abortion provisions, it appears Stupak is not open to compromise and his threat sounds all the more credible given Politico’s revelation that the Michigan Democrat was working with Senator Mitch McConnell to derail the Senate bill back in December. With Stupak gone, that leaves the math at 216-215 against the bill.

In short: Pelosi has to convince at least one of the 39 Democrats who voted “no” to the original bill to switch to a “yes” - a tough proposition that should be all the more tougher considering that it’s more likely than not that other Democrats follow Cao and Stupak’s lead and switch from “yes” to “no.”

Before going through the list of the 39 Democrats who opposed the bill to see who Pelosi might hope to convince,  let’s first consider who might go the other way. One factor to consider: Many Democrats voted “yes” knowing perfectly well they would face very tough races in 2010 (think Baron Hill and Tom Perriello), so why would they now suddenly change their mind? Relatedly, as long as centrists who voted “yes” to the House bill are not motivated by abortion, how would they justify voting against the more conservative Senate bill? Accounting for those questions, I think 5 Democrats are especially likely to switch their vote because their circumstances have changed:

Name
District
Competitive race?
Obama-McCain
Junior?
Comment
Marion Berry
AR-01
Retiring
38-59
No
While you would think his retirement would make him unlikely to vote “no,” Berry has certainly been sounding like he’s considering doing so.
Steve Driehaus
OH-01
Yes
55-44
Freshman
He was one of Stupak’s allies during the fall’s abortion debates, and Democrats seem worried about losing him. His district did vote for Obama by 11% though.
Brad Ellsworth
IN-08
Yes
47-51
Sophomore
He was considered safe back in the fall. Now, he’s running for Senate. All the more likely to switch that he voted for the GOP’s motion to recommit.
Earl Pomeroy
ND-AL
Yes
45-53
No
Back in the fall, he wasn’t expected to face a competitive race - but now he does.
Bart Stupak
MI-01
No
50-48
No
Abortion

But the list of Democrats the leadership should worry about goes much further than these 5. Here is a much longer list of representatives who have been mentioned as possible switchers:

Name
District
Competitive race?
Obama-McCain
Junior?
Comment
Michael Arcuri
NY-24
Yes
51-48
Sophomore
Blue Dog
Tom Bishop
NY-01
Yes
52-48
No
Dennis Cardoza
CA-18
No
59-39
No
Blue Dog
Chris Carney
PA-10
Yes
45-54
No
Blue Dog
Jim Cooper
TN-05
No
56-43
No
Blue Dog
Jim Costa
CA-20
No
60-39
No
Blue Dog
Jerry Costello
IL-12
No
54-44
No
Abortion
Harry Cuellar
TX-28
No
56-44
No
Blue Dog
Kathy Dahlkemper
PA-03
Yes
49-49
freshman
Abortion; Blue Dog
Joe Donnelly
IN-02
perhaps
54-45
sophomore
Abortion; Blue Dog
Baron Hill
IN-09
Yes
49-50
sophomore
Blue Dog; more vulnerable than he looked in the fall
Steve Kagen
WI-08
Yes
54-45
sophomore
Paul Kanjorski
PA-11
Yes
57-42
No
Marcy Kaptur
OH-09
No
62-36
No
Abortion
Dan Kildee
MI-05
No
64-35
No
Abortion
Dan Lipinski
IL-14
No
64-35
No
Abortion
Harry Mitchell
AZ-05
Yes
47-52
No
What would have been the point of voting “no” in the fall if he votes “yes” now?
Alan Mollohan
WV-01
Yes
42-57
No
Dennis Moore
KS-03
Retiring
51-48
No
Bill Owens
NY-23
Yes
52-47
Freshman
Tom Perriello
VA-05
Yes
48-51
Freshman
What would have been the point of voting “no” in the fall if he votes “yes” now?
Gary Peters
MI-09
Yes
56-43
Freshman
Nick Rahall
WV-03
probably not
42-56
No

John Salazar
CO-03
Yes
47-50
No
More vulnerable than he looked in the fall
Mark Schauer
MI-07
Yes
52-46
Freshman
Zach Space
OH-18
No
45-52
Sophomore
John Spratt
SC-05
No
46-53
No
High-ranked
Charlie Wilson
OH-06
No
48-50
No

This is not to say that most of these Democrats will switch - as I said, how will they justify doing so given their fall votes - but the party leadership will have to key an eye on all of them. So where might Pelosi pick-up votes? Of the 39 Democrats who voted “no” in the fall, one is now a Republican (Parker Griffith).  Of the remaining 38, 15 seem to be lost causes:

Dan Boren, Bobby Bright, Travis Childers, Artur Davis, Lincoln Davis, Chet Edwards, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Dennis Kucinich, Jim Marshall, Charlie Melancon, Walt Minnick, Mike Ross, Heath Shuler, Gene Taylor, Harry Teague

Never say never, but these congresspeople look as certain as can be to vote “no.” They are either at the far-right of the caucus (Boren, Bright, Childers, Marshall, Ross, Taylor), in over their head in tough re-election battles (Minnick), seeking higher office in red states (Davis, Melancon) or committed to voting for nothing but single-payer (Kucinich). I thought Herseth Sandlin might be open to supporting a more centrist bill, but recent comments make it unlikely. That leaves 23 Democrats, 5 of which seem more open than others to switching:

Name
District
Competitive race?
Obama-McCain
Junior?
Comment
Brian Baird
WA-03
Retiring
52-46
No
He’s retiring, making him immune to GOP pressure. He recently said he was totally “undecided.”
John Boccieri
OH-16
Yes
48-50
Freshman
Boccieri has turned out to be a lesser priority for the NRCC than fellow Ohio freshmen Kilroy and Driehaus. He has recently sounded open to supporting the bill.
Bart Gordon
TN-06
Retiring
37-62
Sophomore
He’s retiring, which puts him right at the top of the Democrats’ priority list since the GOP can’t pressure him with electoral reasons. He is a Blue Dog. A very important detail: He voted for the bill in the Energy & Commerce Committee before opposing it on the floor, which certainly suggests he’d be open to voting for it now.
Larry Kissell
NC-08
Yes
53-47
freshman
Faces a competitive race, though he represents one of the bluest districts among the 39 who voted ‘no’ in the fall.
Scott Murphy
NY-23
Not for now
51-48
freshman
Murphy looks safer than he did this fall

That leaves us with 18 Democrats whose support for a final bill is plausible, albeit still tough to envision. It will at the least require some very heavy pushing for Pelosi to convince any of these:

Name
District
Competitive race?
Obama-McCain
Junior?
Comment
Jason Altmire
PA-04
Yes
44-55
Sophomore
Despite a few hints of openness to supporting a bill, he has sounded very hostile to health-care reform and the abortion issue should seal his “no.” He’s a Blue Dog.
John Adler
NJ-03
Yes
52-47
Freshman
Adler has done his best to position himself as a centrist over the past few months and he is facing a tricky race. Yet, he is less vulnerable than many others on this list and he represents a district that clearly voted for Obama. He should be right at the top of Pelosi’s target list.
John Barrow
GA-12
No
54-45
No
Allen Boyd
FL-02
In primary
45-54
No
At this point, this Blue Dog has more to worry about in the Dem primary than in the general election. He’s a Blue Dog.
Rick Boucher
VA-09
Yes
40-59
No
Boucher looks far more vulnerable now than he did in the fall, which will complicate Pelosi’s outreach.
Ben Chandler
KY-06
Probably not
43-55
No
The filing deadline has passed in Kentucky, and while the race could heat up Chandler doesn’t have to worry about facing a top-tier Republican. Will this encourage him to vote “yes”? He did support cap-and-trade. He’s a Blue Dog.
Tim Holden
PA-17
Yes
48-51
No
He’s a Blue Dog, and he is facing his first tough re-election race in some time.
Suzanne Kosmas
FL-24
Yes
49-51
freshman
She has emerged as a fairly centrist Democrat, so I’d be somewhat surprised if she switches; but her district is not as red as others on this list.
Frank Kratovil
MD-01
Yes
40-58
freshman
If Pelosi convinces him that he will lose anyway, perhaps?
Betsy Markey
CO-04
Yes
49-50
freshman
She’s a Blue Dog. The Democratic leadership let her be the main sponsor of the bill repealing the anti-trust exemption; might she repay them by voting “yes”?
Eric Massa
NY-29
Probably
48-51
freshman
He is fundraising off his initial vote for health-care, but he is one of the most obvious votes for the leadership to target.
Jim Matheson
UT-02
Probably not
39-57
No
Would be surprised if he votes “yes,” but in recent comments he was less hostile than other Blue Dogs. He’s a Blue Dog.
Michael McMahon
NY-03
Perhaps
49-51
freshman
Mike McIntyre
NC-07
No
47-52
No
The filing deadline passed in North Carolina, and the GOP failed to recruit a credible challenger despite the district’s red lean. Despite McIntyre’s conservatism, that alone makes him a target to leadership pressure. He’s a Blue Dog.
Glenn Nye
VA-02
Yes
51-49
freshman
He’s a Blue Dog, a freshman and he faces a tough race in November - a tough combination for Pelosi. But he also represents one of the few Obama districts on this list, so he is sure to face more pressure than others.
Colin Peterson
MN-07
Probably not
47-50
No
Committee chairman. He’s a Blue Dog.
Ike Skelton
MO-04
Yes
38-61
No
He’s a Blue Dog. The abortion issue could prevent Pelosi from convincing him.
John Tanner
TN-08
Retiring
43-56
No
His retirement is prompting talk he might be more wiling to help his party, though he looks likely to do so than Baird and Gordon. He’s a Blue Dog.

I’ve surely forgotten some Democrats whose votes might also be up in the air and I’ve surely missed comments by many that would suggest they’re clearly committed to one camp or the other. But keep in mind that as long as it’s not even clear whether they’ll even ever be a vote, Democrats on this list have no reason to make their intentions.


Update: The AP just published a story identifying 10 Democrats open to switching from a “no” to a “yes:” Baird, Gordon, Tanner, Boucher, Kosmas, Kratovil, McMahon, Minnick, Murphy and Nye. The only one that is a surprise to me is Minnick, and I’ve update my charts accordingly. The others are certainly not shockers, though I am surprised Boccieri was not included in the story since he has publicly been open to changing.

Update 2: The AP updated its story ruling out Minnick as a switch option, just as I had expected when I placed him in the “lost causes” column. Also, this Slate article contains a few details I had not thought about and which I am adding to my charts. In particular, Rep. Bart Gordon voted for the bill in committee before opposing it on the floor. While he is already in my top-tier of potential switchers, this certainly makes it seem even more possible.

36 Responses to “Where the House stands on health-care”


  1. 1 gerard

    Well,

    Lots of stuff happening today. Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in Arkansas is running a primary against Sen. Lincoln and in Wisconsin, former Gov. Tommy Thompson is gearing up to run against Dem. Sen. Russ Feingold, and the race in Wisconsin is already pretty much a dead heat.

    Another GOP retirement in Georgia, GOP Rep. Linder. I wonder if Dem. Rep. Rangel in NY will finally retire, his ethics challenges are many and deep.

    In response to the healthcare article, Warren Buffet said he’d probably vote for the Senate bill, but, overall, would really favor scrapping the entire thing and starting over. His chief complaint is that a whole lot more needs to be done to get healthcare costs down, they are rising too fast. He also thinks we need a bill the nation can get behind. His comments will no doubt be quoted all over the place.

  2. 2 S.M. Goodman

    You say Scott Murphy is not a junior Congressman. He is in fact very junior, as he’s been in office less than one year. He won a special election to replace Senator Gillibrand when she was appointed to Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat.

  3. 3 Travis Crayton

    You also have some misstated information on Larry Kissell. Firstly, Kissell is certainly a junior — he’s a freshman representative. Secondly, his race in November is expected to be LESS competitive than was initially thought, partially because Robin Hayes isn’t seeking a rematch. The article you link does not mention Kissell at all.

  4. 4 Taniel

    S.M. and Travis, thanks for the corrections. A 55-line table was bound to have mistakes; I went through the rest, and I had also misstated Chris Carney and John Adler’s (lack of seniority).

    About Kissell’s vulnerability, I mistakenly copy/pasted my comment on Pomeroy to him. I am fully aware that he could have faced a more competitive race, though Robin Hayes’s not running does not mean the NRCC won’t heavily target him. (I actually wrote a bit more about the NC-08 race yesterday.)

  5. 5 Cliff

    You lowball the intensity of the “Stupak” opposition. She allowed the Stupak amendment to come forward for a vote because they needed more then just Stupak’s vote, and they only passed it by 4 votes.

    Stupak probably has 8-12 votes in his pocket. She’s waaayyyy short of being able to pass the bill as of now. And that’s not counting random Reps. that don’t want to be on record as supporting the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase if they are trying to pass the Senate bill as-is.

    The Democrats are insane if they actually think they can get a political boost out of passing this. They’ll take an even bigger bath in ‘10 if they do.

    You CAN make the argument that if the program is around long enough then eventually people will rely on it and it’ll build it’s own constituency, but A. That hasn’t happened in Massachusetts and B. It’ll take AT LEAST 4 years to happen, since the taxes happen before the benefits. Do the D’s REALLY want the Republicans to be able to run in ‘12 talking about taxes people have paid for benefits most don’t want and don’t think they’ll really benefit from more then a year before ANYBODY has gotten any benefit? I kinda doubt it.

  6. 6 Taniel

    Cliff, my impression is that some of the Democrats who were part of Stupak’s group voted “nay” despite the amendment’s victory; Jason Altmire, for instance, was one of the firmest on the issue but he voted “no”. Looking at the list, are there enough Democrats concerned about abortion to sink the bill? Yes, especially if representatives like Marcy Kaptur consider voting no. But I don’t see how Stupak can take that many votes with him.

  7. 7 Cliff

    Your impression is right and irrelevant. 64 Dems voted for the Stupak amendment. He only needs a handful of those to wreck the bill.

    If Nancy Pelosi didn’t need the votes of Stupak’s people who would otherwise have voted no, she wouldn’t have allowed the Amendment to come up for a vote, she’d just have passed it anyway.

    No Democrat who wants a pro-life label can vote for the bill as is. They’ll be instantly blackballed by anybody and everybody in the pro-life community. If you don’t understand this, you don’t understand the pro-life community. There might be a few willing to dump the label, but if they are Democrats that have sought out the pro-life label it’s likely either because they truly believe in pro-life causes or because they absolutely need it to stay in office. And they become persona-non-grada if they vote yes on any bill without Stupak.

  8. 8 Cliff

    Worth noting: Jim Clyburn said they needed 10 of Stupak’s people the first time around:

    http://washingtonindependent.com/67491/gop-sees-win-win-as-stupak-splits-dems

    Apparently they got them. And they are now going to flip flop?

    I’d like to be whomever is running against them if they do.

  9. 9 JB

    A very helpful analysis, thanks a bunch. Just a couple other quick corrections: some of the districts are mislabeled; Tom Bishop represents NY-1 and Bill Owens represents NY-23, could be others I didn’t notice.

    I wonder if Eric Massa deserves to be in the top tier of possible ‘Yes to No’ vote switchers. He claims to have voted against it because of a commitment to single payer but I have never believed he was as intransigent on that point as Kucinich.

  10. 10 Cicero

    I will honestly admit that I’m a pro-choice person: I believe it should be up to a woman’s conscience when making a decision on whether to deliver a baby. However, being “pro-choice” doesn’t equate to having federal funds to pay for such procedures. I’m all for giving women this valuable right, but I’m against adding a “pot sweetener” and help pay it off. If some non-profit wants to pay for it, let them flip the bill.

    I admire Stupak, but I think his bill is actually more restrictive than the current Hyde amendment. From a philosophical standpoint, I understand Stupak’s beliefs and feel like the Democrats should try their best to appease Stupak. The problem is that the House doesn’t trust that the Senate will live up to their own bargain via reconciliation. With a leader like Reid, I don’t blame them.

    This current legislation needs to be cleansed of the special giveaways to Nebraska, Louisiana, etc. It also needs to explore tort reform. At its core, I’m against both the House and Senate versions, but if they can find ways to cut out some of the crap that’s in these bills, many of us will come to support it. Not until then.

  11. 11 Taniel

    JB, indeed thanks for that. About Massa: I was close to doing so, but then backtracked after taking a look at his voting record as Massa clearly has no qualms about bucking the Democratic leadership on high-profile occasions. Besides the health-care vote, he also opposed Waxman-Markey and the foreclosures bill; if I remember correctly, his opposition to the latter had little to do with a desire to have a more progressive bill. Also, his latest position appears to be that Congress should pass a small bill so that states can then pick-up the single-payer fight, which suggests he isn’t moving for now.

    Cliff, I remain unconvinced Pelosi risks losing 10 votes if the Stupak language is included. I understand that the Ben Nelson language included in the Senate is not as strict than the Stupak amendment, but it’s also much tougher than what would have been in the House bill had the Stupak amendment not passed - i.e. what Stupak’s group was protesting against. I’m not saying Ben Nelson will satisfy the House’s pro-lifers, just that the circumstances aren’t Stupak-or-nothing but Stupak-or-Nelson, which is not quite the same thing and could certainly be an argument for Pelosi to use to convince otherwise supportive Dems like Kildee, Costello and Kaptur.

  12. 12 Tom Maguire

    “As importantly, anyone who voted for health-care reform in the fall will be attacked however they vote this second time. What will their response be: “I voted for it before I voted against it”?”

    Is there something wrong with replying “I voted for a good House bill and against an unacceptable Senate bill”?

  13. 13 Taniel

    Tom, most of the people who are on the list of potential “yes” to “no” switchers (and on the list of those who could be attacked for their vote) are conservative Dems, not progressives who consider the House bill good and the Senate bill unacceptable.

  14. 14 Cliff

    I’m not saying Ben Nelson will satisfy the House’s pro-lifers, just that the circumstances aren’t Stupak-or-nothing

    That’s the thing you’ve got exactly backwards. It IS Stupak or nothing for Stupak and I’m guessing 8-12 others. The pro-life movement will accept nothing else. If they want their blessing, or even non-agression, they’ll be voting Stupak or nothing.

    Some might not feel the need to keep the pro-life label, but if they vote for anything w/o Stupak, it’s gone.

  15. 15 SAM

    Dan Lipinski is not a No. He’s my rep and when I’ve called him in the past to find out which way he’s voting on issues, his staff says one thing and he does another. And he always votes pro-Obama. Check his record.

    On the previous House healthcare bill his staff stated right until the vote that he was undecided and then he voted for the bill. He may be Catholic and supposedly oppsed to abortion but that didn’t stop his prevous vote in favor of Obamacare.

    For perspective, at a charity auction two weeks ago, he presented Obama inauguration items for bid. When Obama is losing favor with the rest of the nation, Lipinski is his biggest cheerleader. He’s in Obama’s corner. Don’t trust his No.

  16. 16 Taniel

    SAM, I’m not sure who claimed Lipinski was a no. He is listed among those who might switched from a “yes” to a “no” but not among those who are most likely to do so.

  17. 17 Mark

    The AP has now updated its story concerning the ten who either didn’t respond or who said they were open to switching and they have changed the number to nine. Minnick’s spokesman indicated that he has no intention at all of switching his vote from no to yes. He refused to respond earlier when questioned concerning how he intended to vote. This tells me that the AP is reading entirely too much into the fact that some of the people they surveyed, or at least attempted to, did not respond.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/01/white-house-health-care-vote_n_480245.html

  18. 18 Mark

    “But I don’t see how Stupak can take that many votes with him.”

    That may be true, but Stupak himself has stated that he has spoken to 15-20 reps. who now intend on voting no. Obviously this should be taken with a grain of salt, but I have no reason to believe he would deliberately lie. An AP article that came out a few days ago indicated that the support for the bill was below 200 votes. I would imagine that most of those are from people who voted yes on the Stupak Amendment.

  19. 19 Ron

    Democrats absolutely have to pass this bill. They have no other choice. If they fail on this, they will be laughed at by everybody. This is probably the last majority they will have for a generation. A shotgun needs to be held to every Democrat’s head until 216 votes are reached.

  20. 20 Ervin Hill

    Any representative or senator that votes for this monstrosity needs to be voted out of office at the next election. It will cripple the American economy and health care systems at the same time.
    Ron, “A shotgun needs to be held to every Democrat’s head”, really? That is the mentality that generates the divisiveness in this country. How about open and honest debate about the root of the problem? Let’s have an honest assessment of what has driven the cost of health care in this country up and not start throwing around words like “greed”. Look at the government regulations that limit access, or force providers to take reduced payments. How about looking honestly at what most call “insurance”? It is really a distributed cost pre-paid maintenance plan. The statists are in control in Washington and are pushing their agenda through whatever venue seems viable. They have been pushing for European Socialized medicine for 60 years and the American people have been rightfully pushing back.

  21. 21 Mark

    The argument that the Democrats need to pass the bill to show they “can govern” is absolutely ridiculous. WHat good is “good governance” if you are passing unpopular bills? The notion that people are going to reward you for the act of passing the bill itself, when they don’t want the actual bill is ludicrous.

  22. 22 Art

    NY-01 is Tim (not Tom) Bishop

  23. 23 Vlad

    I bet Stupak has a list of 500 known Communists in his briefcase, too. No reason to check-I’m sure he’s trustworthy!

  24. 24 Mark

    The above comment by Vlad is extremely stupid. How in the world is voting against the bill because of abortion analgous to McCarthyism? As for vote switching, Michael Arcuri has confirmed that he is switching his vote from yes to no.

  25. 25 Anonymous

    In my above post, it should be analagous, not analgous.

  26. 26 Anonymous

    In reference to Bart Stupak, he has been stating consistently for quite a long time now that the number of those who will not vote for the bill if the abortion language is not changed is 12. He has repeated that number dozens of times. After so much repitition, I tend to believe there is some truth to it. Remember what happened last time when the leadership dismissed him. They are now paying the price for having to appease him and it is becoming increasingly likely that THE issue that is going to sink this bill is abortion. The American public intensely dislikes the thought of having to pay for someone’s elective abortion.

  27. 27 zubalove

    Massa is retiring for health reasons. I would expect his vote to be a little more in play now that he is free of electoral pressure. However, he still is his own man. Called his Pittsford office and they’re as in the dark as to what he may do as we are.

    Looks like I’m going to write him a letter.

  28. 28 Elois Shaughnessy

    very nice put up, i definitely love this web site, carry on it

  29. 29 herbzone.pl

    It is really a social construction that people could make an effort to
    reconstruct. First Aid is Free, and it could
    be found within the Android Market or downloaded through App - Brain.
    The right kind of diagnoses serves as a possible obligation of sorts, therefore the patient has to do the physician ordered.

    my page :: herbzone.pl

  30. 30 rhinoplasty

    In fact, such windows increase the amount of value for a property
    and folks would surely wish to invest in it. In addition, modern windows
    are prepared for insulating the property, thus scaling
    down our air conditioning energy. Double-glazing
    salesmen employ a reputation for being thick-skinned and
    hard-nosed which is well deserved.

  1. 1 For All You Health Care Junkies - Swampland - TIME.com
  2. 2 Hot Air » Blog Archive » Gulp: At least 10 House Democrats may flip from no to yes on ObamaCare
  3. 3 Balloon Juice » Blog Archive » Getting to 216 votes…
  4. 4 One, Two, Three, Four, Counting the Votes For Health Reform - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine
  5. 5 The Greenroom » Forum Archive » ObamaCare: Burning down the House
  6. 6 The Obama Dems and Their Abuse Of Power « Nice Deb

Leave a Reply



If you like the website...

... Support Campaign Diaries

Archives